Currently Questioning Religious Beliefs

[ngill09]

You don’t understand. Christians don’t believe that God created the whole universe exactly as it is and then just walked away. We believe that God created the universe and then continued to guide it from there. We don’t necessarily know what the universe looked like when God first created it. It is perfectly reasonable to think that God created a world that looked considerably different, and then guided the shaping of it; not necessarily hand-crafting the crystals and trees, but rather deciding how He wanted them to be and setting events in place so that it may happen.

For instance, in Genesis, the world is described as being created in stages. God created the light, then the darkness, then the sky, the land, the water, ect. It happens step by step. So why can’t we assume that the formation of the world that we can obverse is just a continuation of those many steps? God created the world because He loved it, so isn’t it completely logical to assume that he still takes an active part in creating and shaping it today?

I do understand, and that is not an objection to anything I wrote. There are natural processes that seem to require explanation. Either they were created (or are being controlled) by a dude or by something unlike a dude. The track record of explaining phenomena around us has never uncovered that behind some process there was a magical person directing it. This does not mean that there is not some dude behind everything, but that conclusion seems to rely too heavily on intuition and not at all on data.

 

[marylauravicuna]

The main message of “The Case for Christ” is that the case for Christ cannot be made without ignoring anyone who isn’t selling Christianity. Worst apologetic book I’ve ever read. It was one of the books that took me from being a fencesitter to being fairly convinced that the entire project of Christian apologetics is inherently dishonest. If you want something that will actually make you think you should skip the salesmen and go straight to Aquinas, Augustine, and other theologians, or someone who can communicate their ideas effectively.

That’s not what I got out of it. I was surprised at that non-Christian historian was aware of Jesus and wrote about him just about the time he lived, i.e. Josephus.

 

[ngill09]

That’s not what I got out of it. I was surprised at that non-Christian historian was aware of Jesus and wrote about him just about the time he lived, i.e. Josephus.

Josephus makes a passing mention of “James, the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ”. The other mention is that of the testimonium flavium, which the consensus of historians agree is probably not authentic. And he wrote of him no earlier than 93 AD, 60 years after the crucifixion.

But I’m not here to argue about how misleading that book is. Just know that I and everyone I know who has read that book and went on to study New Testament scholarship in more detail was shocked at how misleading it was.

 

[marylauravicuna]

Josephus makes a passing mention of “James, the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ”. The other mention is that of the testimonium flavium, which the consensus of historians agree is probably not authentic. And he wrote of him no earlier than 93 AD, 60 years after the crucifixion.

For someone who does not know the history, this is a pretty big deal.

 

[George_Stegmeir]

Just a suggestion: Is there a parish or educational institution near you that has Jesuit or Dominican priests? If s, you would do well to go there and make an appointment to talk with one of them. They are fully able to provide answers to you that will satisfy your intellectual approach to our religion.

 

[Butaperson]

I do understand, and that is not an objection to anything I wrote. There are natural processes that seem to require explanation. Either they were created (or are being controlled) by a dude or by something unlike a dude. The track record of explaining phenomena around us has never uncovered that behind some process there was a magical person directing it. This does not mean that there is not some dude behind everything, but that conclusion seems to rely too heavily on intuition and not at all on data.

Are you trying to say that because we don’t look at the weather and think “That is literally so amazing, something must be behind it”, it is unlikely that there is anything behind it?

That’s quite a leap to make based on observed human psychology.

I think that has a lot more to do with the fact that we are completely desensitized to amazing processes like the weather. It happens every single day and we never worry about it, because there are just more profitable things to worry about than “but why is there wind today?”

However, when you start to learn about why exactly there IS wind today…you start to wonder.

I took a very basic earth science class last year. The lowest level science class at my school. We did a unit on the atmosphere and things like the weather. It was amazing. Taking a look at the complex processes behind something that seems so simple and ordinary.
I wasn’t Catholic back then. I pretty much believed as if I were non-religious. And I can tell you right now that the only question going through my mind during that class was…how. I could scarcely fathom how the universe could do all that on its own. It took more faith to believe that sort of science than religion requires now…because when God is in the equation, suddenly it all makes sense.

So to be honest, maybe if more people took a look at the inner workings of such things as the weather and the trees and crystals…your point would not be nearly so valid. I know that in my case, it is not.

But I guess then there is the second part of your question, that there is no data to support it. You are thinking too scientifically about this. Data alone proves nothing unless you can use logic to connect the data together. If you write down that when you put a seed in the ground, some time letter a little leafy thing pops up in its place…so what? It doesn’t matter unless you can use logic to conclude that the seed is what created the little leafy thing.

What we are doing here is applying logic to the bigger picture. We can collect data on so many things around us, but there is a limit. The universe is just too big and the past is just too far away. We can’t collect enough clear-cut information to create hard-core scientific theories about what happened millions of years ago, so basically what we do is use the data from the relatively recent earthly world in order to create a logical conclusion about God.

 

[ngill09]

Why do you go from “how?” to “a dude must have done it!” and yet don’t ask how that happened or why a being like that would exist with the specific desires and characteristics that would lead it to create things the way it did?

 

[laircy]

I found this quite convincing. It is a long but worthwhile read. home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/cosmological-arguments-god.htm

 

[Butaperson]

Why do you go from “how?” to “a dude must have done it!” and yet don’t ask how that happened or why a being like that would exist with the specific desires and characteristics that would lead it to create things the way it did?

It doesn’t go from “how” to “a dude must have done it”. That’s way over simplifying the mental process. You first ask the question “How does this happen?”. Then you are presented with several potential answers. Then you must use your logical mind to choose to answer that makes the most sense. That answer would be a higher power.

Of course, i am explaining this with a very clear-cut mindset. That’s not usually how I roll. It’s entirely possible to come to the conclusion of God just because you know God is there (since the truth will always manifest itself somehow, there is more than one way to come to that conclusion). But it’s also entirely possible to look at the facts, look at the possibilities, and make a reasonable and completely logical conclusion based on what best fits the full picture.

Anyways, that’s how you can use the earth around you to come to the conclusion that there must be a higher power. That’s how you get to deism. Christianity is a whole different story and personally, I like it much better. There’s so much more faith involved, which is the whole point of religion.

 

[ClearWater]

Or it will be seen that it did. There are other alternatives, yes?

Well, that creation created itself? I find that improbable.

 

[ClearWater]

This is a butchery of statistics, which is my professional field.

The probability of the universe coming into existence on its own is indeterminate until you have data of universes coming into existence or at the very least a theoretical framework from which a probability distribution can be inferred. No one I’ve heard of has either of those things. You can’t just pull probabilities out of a hat.

Well, what do you think the probability of life coming to existence is…how many variables would you estimate them to be at then? Even if it were hundreds to one or thousands of one, it’s still improbable.

 

[Sochi]

What other ways?

Since you are intellectually astute and have faith, I have no intention of swaying you. I’m just saying. But if your question is sincere, and you wish an alternative compatible with your faith, I suggest you read Bernadette Roberts. If you are more generally open, then Franklin Merrell-Wolff’s two books are a good bet. But there are still other ways, and they are still and always fundamental to christianism. But you will have your own assessment of that, as you seem to be set.

Like I said, I spent time being non-religious. From what I can tell the state of being non-religious is just constantly telling yourself there is “another way” that doesn’t involve God, no matter how hard you have to weave around things to try and find it.

Yes, of course that appears to be so. But I submit that you have been, like so many, looking within the pre set parameters of your inculcations. Of course, you will judge by those, as well. whatever evidence might show up, yes?

I love to theorize things. I’m willing to consider any “alternative ways” you have, I love creative solutions like that. But ever since I began to really learn about the Church, I have heard very little that can truly stand up against having a religious perspective on life.

I have no creative solutions or alternative ways to offer. I offer what works, and has worked since time immemorial. It will work for you, or not, according to your wish. We are not different that way.

 

[ngill09]

Well, what do you think the probability of life coming to existence is…how many variables would you estimate them to be at then? Even if it were hundreds to one or thousands of one, it’s still improbable.

Actually given that we have only ever seen a universe where life came into existence, the best possible estimate (though it is a bad one) is that the probability of life coming into existence is 100%.

 

[Sochi]

Well, that creation created itself? I find that improbable.

Wow. How could that be? You are smarter than you think. (That is a loaded statement. Good work!) Do you have any idea how improbable it is that someone would come up with that as a starting point? Now, as a serendipitous conclusion, it might be a far different story. ClearWater might be a good name for you. Just depends if you are stirring it or looking at the calm surface.

 

[ngill09]

Suppose I drew a card from my hat and showed it to you. On it was a picture of a George Washington. I then asked you what the probability of me drawing that card was. You might go off and then imagine that I could have drawn a card with a picture of anyone who has ever lived on it, so the probability that I drew a picture with that particular person on it would be 1/(the total number of people who have ever lived). 1 in many billions. Or you could imagine that I could have had anything on the card, and then it would be 1/(everything that can be pictured), which would be incredibly remote. But none of these probabilities are meaningful, because we only have one datum. It’s just as possible that I only had one card in my hat and that was it, so the probability was 100%. Talking about probabilities like this is entirely speculative.

 

[JCnMe]

…it’s not anyone’s job to convince another that God exists-…that’s between you and God… if you really want to know Him- then it’s time to start praying and talk to Him… I assure you He’s there and will listen…God speaks to all of us in ways we can understand…but you have to learn to listen too…

 

[opusAquinas]

Throughout my life, I have been a faithful and devout Catholic. However, for the past few months, I have been questioning my beliefs. I am more leaning towards Agnosticism now. By nature, I like the scientific process, and have found many theories that explain the universe in a way that does not require religion. I feel like I am losing my belief in a higher power. Not necessarily going against it, but rather remaining neutral on the existence of God(s).

At times, I feel like my religious beliefs may inhibit certain scientific theories and social progress (although this by no means affects my beliefs in general).

So why am I here? I’ve heard a lot of irreligious commentary on the subject. But before I make up my mind, I want some members of the Catholic community to offer me some insight. Are there any thoughts? Thank you.

Re-read the New Testament. Do you accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior?

“A sower went out to sow his seed. And as he sowed, some seed fell on the path and was trampled, and the birds of the sky ate it up. 6Some seed fell on rocky ground, and when it grew, it withered for lack of moisture. 7Some seed fell among thorns, and the thorns grew with it and choked it. 8And some seed fell on good soil, and when it grew, it produced fruit a hundredfold.” After saying this, he called out, “Whoever has ears to hear ought to hear.”

Let me explain the scientific method in a nutshell. You have a theory (intuition): all swans are white. You test the theory with empirical data (sensation- observation basically): hey all the swans we’ve seen are white - so the theory must be true … until we find the black swan then the entire theory must change. Get it- that simple.

At the Second Coming, at the Last Judgement the atheist scientist will point to the sky and say a new scientific discovery… but it will be too late for them.

What I find really ridiculous is that there are so many people - but there is a bell curve. You have the elite and you have everyone else down the chain of command. I mean in intelligence, artistic talent, strength, etc… The question is who have you really studied and who can you TRUST? The general population are sheep and wolves. And there are trust worthy shepherds and false prophets and lots and lots of imbeciles who speak and are the latter.

Don’t try to figure it all out because a lot of it will be above your pay grade. The real question is: WHO DO YOU TRUST?

Trust in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

 

[polytropos]

Throughout my life, I have been a faithful and devout Catholic. However, for the past few months, I have been questioning my beliefs. I am more leaning towards Agnosticism now. By nature, I like the scientific process, and have found many theories that explain the universe in a way that does not require religion. I feel like I am losing my belief in a higher power. Not necessarily going against it, but rather remaining neutral on the existence of God(s).
…]
So why am I here? I’ve heard a lot of irreligious commentary on the subject. But before I make up my mind, I want some members of the Catholic community to offer me some insight. Are there any thoughts? Thank you.

Have you read Edward Feser’s book Aquinas?

You seem to be saying that God is not necessary to explain the universe; there are other scientific theories that account for what God is meant to account for. You also note “irreligious commentary,” which I am assuming would be the New Atheists, who have charged that God-explanations are unnecessary in the case of evolution (Dawkins) and the beginning of the universe (Krauss).

For those reasons I suggest Aquinas. Aquinas did not offer fine-tuning or kalam arguments. His arguments for God’s existence tend to focus on more basic aspects of metaphysics (ie. change, the existence of contingent beings, the nature of finality). Even his “design” argument does not resemble what is usually meant by that term (and is therefore better described as the argument from finality or from governance). It does not have to do with so-called “irreducible complexity” of biological organisms but rather with the directedness of all natural substances.

Feser does the arguments better justice than I can in this space. His book The Last Superstition is also very good and covers similar topics. It’s a response to the New Atheists as well, though for that reason there are benefits to reading Aquinas. (The New Atheists are philosophical lightweights, really, and he responds to more serious critics in Aquinas).

A case could be made that appeals to “laws of nature” in science require some grounding in finality. For that reason, while scientific explanations may suffice in a proximate sense, that is really not what is at issue in the classical arguments for God’s existence.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

A case could be made that appeals to “laws of nature” in science require some grounding in finality. For that reason, while scientific explanations may suffice in a proximate sense, that is really not what is at issue in the classical arguments for God’s existence.

The classical arguments for the existence of God are persuasive only if you are already disposed to agree with them and put up little resistance to their logic. Ask any atheist. Or ask Pascal or Kant.

The atheist is more interested in the scientific arguments, as any atheist will tell you.

amazon.com/There-Is-God-Notorious-Atheist/dp/0061335304/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1399294737&sr=8-2&keywords=wonders+of+the+world+roy+abraham

This book shows how lifelong atheist Antony Flew found in modern science more persuasive evidence of a Creator God.

 

[polytropos]

The classical arguments for the existence of God are persuasive only if you are already disposed to agree with them and put up little resistance to their logic. Ask any atheist. Or ask Pascal or Kant.

There are virtually no philosophical arguments that are compelling to all rational people. That is simply not the nature of philosophy. It doesn’t have to do with the fact that these particular arguments aim to prove God’s existence, nor does it have to do with the fact that the people in question are atheists. Whenever anyone is considering adopting a serious position that requires a revision of one’s worldview, there are a lot of factors at play. It is extraordinarily unusual that someone will change a position because he has been faced with a philosophical argument that he doesn’t know how to defeat.

That doesn’t mean that the arguments are unsound or cannot conduce to religion. Christians and atheists will have vastly different webs of belief that encompass how they see the world. While an atheist might not bat an eye if presented with a sound version of (say) Aquinas’s First Way, he might be led to view theism as a more coherent worldview, and perhaps to adopt it if enough factors accumulate.

I don’t really know of anyone who is convinced purely by the arguments. Perhaps Edward Feser and Peter Geach. But even in those cases, it seems like they spent a lot of time engaging with the arguments, and as they came to see their strength, they realized that their reasons for objecting (the apparent intellectual weakness of theism) evaporated.

The atheist is more interested in the scientific arguments, as any atheist will tell you.

The science arguments aren’t terrible, but they are not demonstrations of the same caliber as the classical arguments. Science will always deal in proximate (and in the case of cosmology, abiogenesis, etc., exceedingly probabilistic) explanations, so it seems to me like there will always ways to avoid the conclusions of the fine-tuning or kalam arguments. Maybe the atheist is more interested in scientific arguments, but those seem to me to be less indeterminate.

I do think the scientific arguments might help to “paint a theistic picture.” (More in next post.)